4 ms·

Right, because the price of gold in US$ has tripled in the last five years not because of speculation but because the dollar is one third as valuable as before.

by herge 15y ago

Right, because the price of gold in US$ has tripled in the last five years not because of speculation but because the dollar is one third as valuable as before. That's why the average US wage and minimum wage has also tripled over the same time period, right? Or have we become less efficient and our hour of labour is "worth" a third less? The price of labor eclipses the price of commodities in most of the economy, which is the true value of your dollar.

shingen 15y ago
That's exactly right, it's because the dollar is collapsing in real value. I dare you to spec out the price of a basket of 10 to 15 commodities from a decade ago compared to where they're at now.
- herge 15y ago
  But what about labour prices? Why have they not shot up?
- onemoreact 15y ago
  And I dare you to compare the cost of a big mac from 3 years ago vs today in comparison to gold.
  - kyrsey 15y ago
    McDonald's won't take my gold flakes, and anyway I don't think a 3-year-old big mac will be edible...
- woobar 15y ago
  I don't have prices at hand. But a look at my Quicken database revealed that my total food-related expenses (groceries, school lunches, dining out, etc) were: 2001 $12K (family of three) 2011 $17K (family of five) I was surprised when I compared these two numbers first time. Gut feeling was that food prices went up a lot. Housing costs: 2001 $10800 (aparment, rent) 2011 $14800 (house, PITI) Edit: formatting
  - Yen 15y ago
    doesn't the size of the family almost completely account for the difference in price? say you do a simple, stupid analysis - 12k / 3 = $4k/person/year, which is greater than 17k/5 =$3.4k/person/year of course, that's not entirely fair, since children eat less than adults, right? if you ballpark daily caloric intake, the family of 3 eats (2500+2000+1000)365 calories a year, for 4.4 cents/Cal. The family of 5 maybe eats (2200 + 1800 + 1800+1600+1000) 365, for 5.5 cents a Cal (I'm assuming the aging adults moderate their diet for their decreased metabolism) yes, that's a 20% increase, but given other factors (possibly more dining out, errors in the ballparking, etc.), it's really not a huge jump in food prices.

by herge 15y ago

shingen 15y ago

That's exactly right, it's because the dollar is collapsing in real value. I dare you to spec out the price of a basket of 10 to 15 commodities from a decade ago compared to where they're at now.

herge 15y ago
But what about labour prices? Why have they not shot up?
onemoreact 15y ago
And I dare you to compare the cost of a big mac from 3 years ago vs today in comparison to gold.
- kyrsey 15y ago
  McDonald's won't take my gold flakes, and anyway I don't think a 3-year-old big mac will be edible...
woobar 15y ago
I don't have prices at hand. But a look at my Quicken database revealed that my total food-related expenses (groceries, school lunches, dining out, etc) were: 2001 $12K (family of three) 2011 $17K (family of five) I was surprised when I compared these two numbers first time. Gut feeling was that food prices went up a lot. Housing costs: 2001 $10800 (aparment, rent) 2011 $14800 (house, PITI) Edit: formatting
- Yen 15y ago
  doesn't the size of the family almost completely account for the difference in price? say you do a simple, stupid analysis - 12k / 3 = $4k/person/year, which is greater than 17k/5 =$3.4k/person/year of course, that's not entirely fair, since children eat less than adults, right? if you ballpark daily caloric intake, the family of 3 eats (2500+2000+1000)365 calories a year, for 4.4 cents/Cal. The family of 5 maybe eats (2200 + 1800 + 1800+1600+1000) 365, for 5.5 cents a Cal (I'm assuming the aging adults moderate their diet for their decreased metabolism) yes, that's a 20% increase, but given other factors (possibly more dining out, errors in the ballparking, etc.), it's really not a huge jump in food prices.